DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
The Rejection of claims 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 26th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (paraphrasing) the references including Meeker’s attaching means 41 and Poissant’s quarter turn fasteners are not pins and the person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the locators (pins) are not fasteners such as screws, bolts or quarter turn fasteners (paraphrasing) because fasteners fully constrain the components in four or more directions while locators are generally understood to align components before fastening and the pins engage in slots and restrain rotation and translation of motor 112 relative to the second portion (Remarks, pages 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claims use the term “pins” rather than “locators” and although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner contends that nothing in the claims preclude the “pins” from fully constraining components and fasteners (screws or turn-fasteners) would act as two-way locators after securing the components (i.e. acting as a two-way locator in addition to a four-way locator) or before securing the components (e.g. inserted, but not secured by rotating) and would also align components before fastening and fasteners also engage in slots and restrain rotation and translation . Assuming, arguendo that a screw, bolt or the attaching means 41 of Meeker et al. could not be interpreted as a pin; one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Davis et al. reasonably discloses a fastener broadly meeting the limitation of “pin” in that Davis et al. teaches a fastener having an elongated cylindrical shape with a smooth surface (Fig. 1). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
It is noted that the specification provides information as to where the pins are located and some information about spacing (para. [0027]) as well as their shape (“may be shaped as cylindrical pins, tapered pins, or rounded pins in certain example embodiments”, para. [0027]), the pins may be configured to engage with slots and act as two-way locators which as discussed above, would also be accomplished using fasteners such as turn-fasteners or screws. The specification does not appear to disclose any other structure related to the pins and only appears to show one side of the pin in figures which indicates they may have a circular cross section (Fig. 4).
The Applicant argues that the pins allow for a properly aligned output shaft and as described in paragraph [0030] of Applicant’s specification, the subject matter of the claims provides improved craftmanship, increased performance and reduced assembly problems (also see Applicant’s para. [0032]) which are not disclosed, taught or suggested in the cited refences and the cited references fail to disclose each and every aspect of the amended claims (Remarks, page 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, the use of fasteners with receiving slots would also allow for improved craftmanship, increased performance and reduced assembly problems by allowing for proper alignment especially in view of the teaching of Meeker et al. where an asymmetric configuration (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) of slots and fasteners/pins would facilitate assembly by better ensuring that components are installed in the correct configuration (rather than possibly being installed 90 or 180 degrees off as could occur if the slots are symmetrically arranged). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Finally, the Applicant states that “Meeker appears to disclose a single bolt” (Remarks, page 9). It is respectfully noted that Meeker et al. discloses a plurality of attaching means 41 (page 2, right column, lines 34-35) and as indicated by the receiving slots for the plurality of attaching means 41 (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-4 all recite “the motor” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. As best understood, “the motor” is referring to the “motor assembly” previously recited.
Claim 7 recites “the motor” in line 11 (and again in line 16). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. As best understood, “the motor” is referring to the “motor assembly” previously recited.
Claims 8-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 7. It is noted that claims 9-10 also recite “the motor” in line 3 which should also be changed to “the motor assembly”.
Claim 13 recites “the motor” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. As best understood, “the motor” is referring to the “motor assembly” previously recited.
Claims 14-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 13. It is noted that claims 14-15 (line 3) and 16 (line 4) also recite “the motor”, which should also be changed to “the motor assembly”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KitchenAid (previously attached non-patent literature titled “7 QT. Stand Mixer Proline – Bowl Lift”) in view of Meeker et al. (US 2185155), Davis et al. (US 4442571) and Poissant (US 20020061253) and as evidenced by GForce Electric (see previously attached video transcript titled “Kitchen Aid Seven Quart Commercial Repair”).
It is noted that KitchenAid uses the same numbers to identify different parts in the drawings on pages 2, 4, and 6. The part listing for the respective drawings are provided on pages 3, 5, and 7.
Regarding claim 1, KitchenAid discloses a stand mixer appliance defining a mutually perpendicular vertical direction, a lateral direction and a transverse direction, the stand mixer appliance comprising: a casing (page 2) that comprises a base (shown below), a column mounted to the base (member 6, figure of page 2), and a motor housing (members 1-4, figure on page 2 and member 7, figure on page 4) mounted to the column and extending outwardly above the base (figure on page 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
592
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KitchenAid discloses a mixer shaft (indicated by the opening shown above and shown on page 4) positioned on the motor housing; and a motor assembly (motor assembly 10, figure on page 4) positioned within the motor housing (shown in the figure on page 4), the motor comprising pins (screws 4, figure on page 4) wherein the motor housing comprises a first portion (housing 1, shown above) and a second portion (comprising the lower gear case 3 in the figure on page 2, shown above, and the ring gear plate 7 shown in the figure on page 4 and below), the second portion comprising three slots (in that there are 4 slots on the lower gearcase 6, figure page 4, which extend into the ring gear plate 7, figure page 4, which are both part of the second portion), two of the three slots are located along a lateral direction that is perpendicular to the transverse direction as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
967
1662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KitchenAid does not explicitly show three pins (screws). However, as evidenced by GForce Electric, the KitchenAid 7 QT Stand Mixer has four pins (screws) which are inserted into the slots shown above, thus connecting the motor housing to the second portion with the ring gear housing/plate (captured at 4:56 and 5:19, shown annotated below):
PNG
media_image3.png
830
1453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
835
1453
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, as shown above, the motor assembly includes three pins (KitchenAid, screws 4 in figure of page 4) in that it includes four pins connecting to the second portion.
KitchenAid does not disclose two of the three pins are spaced along the lateral direction of the motor housing from a rotational axis of the mixer shaft and the other pin of the three pins is spaced along the transverse direction from the rotational axis of the mixer shaft perpendicular to the two laterally spaced pins, wherein the three pins are each two-way locators and KitchenAid does not explicitly disclose one of the three slots is located along a transverse direction.
However, Meeker et al. teaches a stand mixer (Fig. 1) and further teaches the use of an asymmetric configuration for pins (attaching means 41) wherein two of the three pins are spaced along the lateral direction of the motor housing from a rotational axis of the mixer shaft (pin locations indicated by slot locations shown below which are spaced along a lateral direction being located along an axis parallel to an axis passing through the rotational axis and perpendicular to the transverse axis/direction [shown below]) and the other pin of the three pins is spaced along the transverse direction from the rotational axis of the mixer shaft perpendicular to the two laterally spaced pins (shown below), wherein the three pins are each two-way locators (by restricting movement along 1 axis or 2 degrees of freedom when inserted) one of the three slots is located along the transverse direction and the other two of the three slots (among other slots) are located along the lateral direction, the three pins (each slot having an attaching means 41) extending perpendicular to the transverse and lateral directions, each of the three pins are disposed within a respective one of the three slots of the second portion of the motor housing as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
710
1431
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KitchenAid by arranging slots and pins such that two of the three pins are spaced along the lateral direction of the motor housing from a rotational axis of the mixer shaft and the other pin of the three pins is spaced along the transverse direction from the rotational axis of the mixer shaft perpendicular to the two laterally spaced pins, wherein the three pins are each two-way locators one of the three slots is located along the transverse direction the other two of the three slots located along the lateral direction, the three pins of the motor assembly extending perpendicular to the transverse and lateral directions, each of the three pins of the motor assembly disposed within a respective one of the three slots of the second portion of the motor housing.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to rearrange the location of slots in order to achieve an asymmetric configuration to facilitate assembly by better ensuring that components such as the ring gear housing are installed in the correct configuration (rather than possibly being installed 90 or 180 degrees off as could occur if the slots are symmetrically arranged).
The above cited references do not disclose one of the three slots is elongated along the transverse direction, the other two of the three slots are elongated along the lateral direction.
However, Poissant teaches a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of mounting motor assemblies and Poissant teaches the use of quarter-turn fasteners (quarter turn fasteners 40) for mounting a motor assembly (motor 18, gear 74, cover 36, Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KitchenAid wherein quarter turn fastener pins are used instead of threaded screw pins.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use quarter turn pins in mounting motor assemblies in order to speed assembly of the device.
The above do not explicitly disclose an elongated slot.
However, quarter turn fasteners may utilize an elongated slot to facilitate insertion of tabs/protrusions on the pin and Davis et al. discloses a device (pin/fastener – stud 20) which is analogous art in that it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of quickly connecting components (col. 1, lines 63-66, claim 1) and Davis et al. discloses a quarter-turn fastener pin (stud 20, col. 2, line 4) for connecting two members together (col. 1, lines 63-66) wherein the pin passes through an elongated slot (comprising keyhole aperture 50 and slot 76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KitchenAid by using quarter turn pins with lugs wherein the slots have an elongated keyed opening such that one of the three slots is elongated along the transverse direction, the other two of the three slots are elongated along the lateral direction.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a quarter turn pin configuration which has an elongated keyed slot that allows for quick acting and locking of the pin fastener (Davis et al., claim 1) to shorten assembly time such as by having the elongated keyed slot as an insert guide and where the pin is fastened upon a quarter turn instead of many turns as would be required using a threaded pin/screw.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 disclose
wherein one of the three pins of the motor assembly in the slot of the second portion elongated along the transverse direction restrains translation of the motor relative to the second portion in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction in that when only one pin is installed, the movement is restricted to rotational movement about the pin within the plane which is perpendicular to the vertical direction as indicated below:
PNG
media_image6.png
613
1095
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
848
1356
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 disclose wherein two of the three pins of the motor assembly in the two slots of the second portion elongated along the lateral direction restrains rotation and translation of the motor relative to the second portion in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction in that once a second pin is installed, the motor is prevented from moving.
Regarding claim 4, KitchenAid discloses the stand mixer comprises a horizontal output shaft rotatably mounted to the motor housing, and the pins (screws 4) disposed within the slots of the second portion are arranged and oriented to align the motor with the horizontal output shaft as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
539
872
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In modifying KitchenAid as discussed above for claim 1, the three pins of the motor assembly disposed within the three slots (Meeker et al., Fig. 5, circled above for claim 1) of the second portion are also arranged and oriented to align the motor with the horizontal output shaft (shown above) as the motor configuration is unchanged and only the location of the pins and slots is rearranged.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 reasonably disclose wherein the two of the three slots that are elongated along the lateral direction are spaced by no less than four centimeters from each other in the lateral direction in that in modifying the configuration of the slots in the pattern taught by Meeker et al. (Fig. 5) as shown above for claim 1, the slots would be located toward the outside perimeter of the ring gear plate of KitchenAid as indicated below:
PNG
media_image9.png
547
1322
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by GForce, this lateral distance is reasonably greater than 4 cm as compared to the size of the hand in the video frame (at 4:56):
PNG
media_image10.png
830
1453
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Assuming, arguendo, that the combined teaching of the above-cited references do not disclose a distance between the lateral slots greater than 4 cm, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the slot distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of KitchenAid with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 5 disclose wherein the three pins are one of cylindrical pins, tapered pins, and rounded pins in that the pins are each cylindrical, rounded and tapered (Davis et al., Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image11.png
453
625
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, KitchenAid discloses a stand mixer appliance defining a mutually perpendicular vertical direction, a lateral direction and a transverse direction, the stand mixer appliance comprising: a casing (page 2) that comprises a base (shown below), a column mounted to the base (member 6, figure of page 2), and a motor housing (members 1-4, figure on page 2 and member 7, figure on page 4) mounted to the column and extending outwardly above the base (figure on page 2 and as shown above for claim 1).
KitchenAid discloses a mixer shaft (indicated by the opening shown above for claim 1 and shown on page 4) positioned on the motor housing; a motor assembly (motor assembly 10 as shown on page 4) positioned within the motor housing, the motor assembly comprising pins (screws 4); and a horizontal output shaft rotatable by the motor relative to the motor housing (shown above for claim 4), wherein the motor housing comprises a first portion (housing 1 as shown on page 4) and a second portion (comprising lower gearcase 6 and ring gear plate 7 as shown on page 4), the second portion comprising three slots (in that there are 4 slots on the lower gearcase 6, figure on page 4, which extend into the ring gear plate 7, figure on page 4, which are both part of the second portion) as shown above for claim 1.
KitchenAid does not explicitly show three pins (screws). However, as evidenced by GForce Electric, the KitchenAid 7 QT Stand Mixer has four pins (screws) which are inserted into the slots shown above, thus connecting the motor housing to the second portion with the ring gear housing/plate (captured at 4:56 and 5:19, shown annotated above for claim 1).
Thus, as shown above for claim 1, the motor assembly includes three pins (KitchenAid, screws 4 in figure of page 4) in that it includes four pins connecting to the second portion.
KitchenAid does not disclose two of the three pins are spaced along the lateral direction of the motor housing from a rotational axis of the mixer shaft and the other pin of the three pins is spaced along the transverse direction from the rotational axis of the mixer shaft perpendicular to the two laterally spaced pins, wherein the three pins are each two-way locators and KitchenAid does not explicitly disclose one of the three slots is located along a transverse direction.
However, Meeker et al. teaches a stand mixer (Fig. 1) and further teaches the use of an asymmetric configuration for pins (attaching means 41) wherein two of the three pins are spaced along the lateral direction of the motor housing from a rotational axis of the mixer shaft (pin locations indicated by slot locations shown above for claim 1 which are spaced along a lateral direction being located along an axis parallel to an axis passing through the rotational axis and perpendicular to the transverse axis/direction [shown above for claim 1]) and the other pin of the three pins is spaced along the transverse direction from the rotational axis of the mixer shaft perpendicular to the two laterally spaced pins (shown below), wherein the three pins are each two-way locators (by restricting movement along 1 axis or 2 degrees of freedom when inserted) one of the three slots is located along the transverse direction and the other two of the three slots (among other slots) are located along the lateral direction, the three pins (each slot having an attaching means 41) extending perpendicular to the transverse and lateral directions, each of the three pins are disposed within a respective one of the three slots of the second portion of the motor housing as shown for claim 1 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KitchenAid by arranging slots and pins such that two of the three pins are spaced along the lateral direction of the motor housing from a rotational axis of the mixer shaft and the other pin of the three pins is spaced along the transverse direction from the rotational axis of the mixer shaft perpendicular to the two laterally spaced pins, wherein the three pins are each two-way locators and where one of the three slots is located along the transverse direction, the other two of the three slots located along the lateral direction, the three pins of the motor assembly extending perpendicular to the transverse and lateral directions, each of the three pins of the motor disposed within a respective one of the three slots of the second portion of the motor housing.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to rearrange the location of slots in order to achieve an asymmetric configuration to facilitate assembly by better ensuring that components such as the ring gear housing are installed in the correct configuration (rather than possibly being installed 90 or 180 degrees off as could occur if the slots are symmetrically arranged).
The above cited references do not disclose one of the three slots is elongated along the transverse direction, the other two of the three slots are elongated along the lateral direction.
However, Poissant teaches a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of mounting motor assemblies and Poissant teaches the use of quarter-turn fasteners (quarter turn fasteners 40) for mounting a motor assembly (motor 18, gear 74, cover 36, Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KitchenAid wherein quarter turn fastener pins are used instead of threaded screw pins.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use quarter turn pins in mounting motor assemblies in order to speed assembly of the device.
The above do not explicitly disclose an elongated slot.
However, quarter turn fasteners may utilize an elongated slot to facilitate insertion of tabs/protrusions on the pin and Davis et al. discloses a device (pin/fastener – stud 20) which is analogous art in that it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of quickly connecting components (col. 1, lines 63-66, claim 1) and Davis et al. discloses a quarter-turn fastener pin (stud 20, col. 2, line 4) for connecting two members together (col. 1, lines 63-66) wherein the pin passes through an elongated slot (comprising keyhole aperture 50 and slot 76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KitchenAid by using quarter turn pins with lugs wherein the slots have an elongated keyed opening such that one of the three slots is elongated along the transverse direction, the other two of the three slots are elongated along the lateral direction.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a quarter turn pin configuration which has an elongated keyed slot that allows for quick acting and locking of the pin fastener (Davis et al., claim 1) to shorten assembly time such as by having the elongated keyed slot as an insert guide and where the pin is fastened upon a quarter turn instead of many turns as would be required using a threaded pin/screw.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 7 disclose
wherein one of the three pins of the motor assembly in the slot of the second portion elongated along the transverse direction restrains translation of the motor assembly relative to the second portion in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction in that when only one pin is installed, the movement is restricted to rotational movement about the pin within the plane which is perpendicular to the vertical direction as shown and indicated above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 7 disclose wherein two of the three pins of the motor assembly in the two slots of the second portion elongated along the lateral direction restrains rotation and translation of the motor relative to the second portion in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction in that once a second pin is installed, the motor is prevented from moving.
Regarding claim 10, KitchenAid discloses the horizontal output shaft is rotatably mounted to the motor housing, and the pins (screws 4) disposed within the slots of the second portion are arranged and oriented to align the motor with the horizontal output shaft as shown above for claim 4.
In modifying KitchenAid as discussed above for claim 7, the three pins of the motor assembly disposed within the three slots (Meeker et al., Fig. 5, circled above for claim 1) of the second portion are also arranged and oriented to align the motor with the horizontal output shaft (shown above for claim 4) as the motor configuration is unchanged and only the location of the pins and slots is rearranged.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 7 reasonably disclose wherein the two of the three slots that are elongated along the lateral direction are spaced by no less than four centimeters from each other in the lateral direction in that in modifying the configuration of the slots in the pattern taught by Meeker et al. (Fig. 5) as shown above for claim 1, the slots would be located toward the outside perimeter of the ring gear plate of KitchenAid as shown/indicated above for claim 5. As evidenced by GForce, this lateral distance is reasonably greater than 4 cm as compared to the size of the hand in the video frame (at 4:56) shown above for claim 5.
Assuming, arguendo, that the combined teaching of the above-cited references does not disclose a distance between the lateral slots greater than 4 cm, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the slot distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of KitchenAid with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 7 disclose wherein the three pins are one of cylindrical pins, tapered pins, and rounded pins in that the pins are each cylindrical, rounded and tapered (Davis et al., Fig. 1) as shown above for claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, KitchenAid discloses a stand mixer appliance defining a mutually perpendicular vertical direction, a lateral direction and a transverse direction, the stand mixer appliance comprising: a casing (page 2) that comprises a base (shown below), a column mounted to the base (member 6, figure of page 2), and a motor housing (members 1-4, figure on page 2 and member 7, figure on page 4) mounted to the column and extending outwardly above the base (figure on page 2 and as shown above for claim 1).
KitchenAid discloses a mixer shaft (indicated by the opening shown above for claim 1 and shown on page 4) positioned on the motor housing; a motor assembly (motor assembly 10 as shown on page 4) positioned within the motor housing, the motor assembly comprising pins (screws 4); and a horizontal output shaft rotatable by the motor relative to the motor housing (shown above for claim 4), wherein the motor housing comprises a first portion (housing 1 as shown on page 4) and a second portion (comprising lower gearcase 6 and ring gear plate 7 as shown on page 4), the second portion comprising at least three slots (in that there are 4 slots on the lower gearcase 6, figure on page 4, which extend into the ring gear plate 7, figure on page 4, which are both part of the second portion) as shown above for claim 1.
KitchenAid does not explicitly show at least three pins (screws). However, as evidenced by GForce Electric, the KitchenAid 7 QT Stand Mixer has four pins (screws) which are inserted into the slots shown above, thus connecting the motor housing to the second portion with the ring gear housing/plate (captured at 4:56 and 5:19, shown annotated above for claim 1).
Thus, as shown above for claim 1, the motor assembly includes at least three pins (KitchenAid, screws 4 in figure of page 4) in that it includes four pins connecting to the second portion.
KitchenAid does not disclose two of the at least three pins are spaced along the lateral direction of the motor housing from a rotational axis of the mixer shaft and the other pin of the at least three pins is spaced along the transverse direction from the rotational axis of the mixer shaft perpendicular to the two laterally spaced pins, wherein the at least three pins are each two-way locators and KitchenAid does not explicitly disclose one of the at least three slots is located along a transverse direction.
However, Meeker et al. teaches a stand mixer (Fig. 1) and further teaches the use of an asymmetric configuration for pins (attaching means 41) wherein two pins of the at least three pins are spaced along the lateral direction of the motor housing from a rotational axis of the mixer shaft (pin locations indicated by slot locations shown above for claim 1 which are spaced along a lateral direction being located along an axis parallel to an axis passing through the rotational axis and perpendicular to the transverse axis/direction [shown above for claim 1]) and the other pin of the at least three pins is spaced along the transverse direction from the rotational axis of the mixer shaft perpendicular to the two laterally spaced pins (shown above for claim 1), wherein the at least three pins are each two-way locators (by restricting movement along 1 axis or 2 degrees of freedom when inserted) one of the at least three slots is located along the transverse direction and the other two of the at least three slots (among other slots) are located along the lateral direction, the at least three pins (each slot having an attaching means 41) of the motor assembly extending perpendicular to the transverse direction, each of the at least three pins of the motor assembly disposed within a respective slot of the at least three slots of the second portion of the motor housing as shown for claim 1 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KitchenAid by arranging slots and pins such that two pins of the at least three pins are spaced along the lateral direction of the motor housing from a rotational axis of the mixer shaft and the other pin of the at least three pins is spaced along the transverse direction from the rotational axis of the mixer shaft perpendicular to the two laterally spaced pins, wherein the at least three pins are each two-way locators and where one of the at least three slots is located along the transverse direction, the other two of the at least three slots located along the lateral direction, the at least three pins of the motor assembly extending perpendicular to the transverse direction, each of the at least three pins of the motor assembly disposed within a respective slot of the at least three slots of the second portion of the motor housing.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to rearrange the location of slots in order to achieve an asymmetric configuration to facilitate assembly by better ensuring that components such as the ring gear housing are installed in the correct configuration (rather than possibly being installed 90 or 180 degrees off as could occur if the slots are symmetrically arranged).
The above cited references do not disclose one of the at least three slots is elongated along the transverse direction, the other two of the at least three slots are elongated along the lateral direction.
However, Poissant teaches a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of mounting motor assemblies and Poissant teaches the use of quarter-turn fasteners (quarter turn fasteners 40) for mounting a motor assembly (motor 18, gear 74, cover 36, Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KitchenAid wherein quarter turn fastener pins are used instead of threaded screw pins.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use quarter turn pins in mounting motor assemblies in order to speed assembly of the device.
The above do not explicitly disclose an elongated slot.
However, quarter turn fasteners may utilize an elongated slot to facilitate insertion of tabs/protrusions on the pin and Davis et al. discloses a device (pin/fastener – stud 20) which is analogous art in that it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of quickly connecting components (col. 1, lines 63-66, claim 1) and Davis et al. discloses a quarter-turn fastener pin (stud 20, col. 2, line 4) for connecting two members together (col. 1, lines 63-66) wherein the pin passes through an elongated slot (comprising keyhole aperture 50 and slot 76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KitchenAid by using quarter turn pins with lugs wherein the slots have an elongated keyed opening such that one of the at least three slots is elongated along the transverse direction, the other two of the at least three slots are elongated along the lateral direction.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a quarter turn pin configuration which has an elongated keyed slot that allows for quick acting and locking of the pin fastener (Davis et al., claim 1) to shorten assembly time such as by having the elongated keyed slot as an insert guide and where the pin is fastened upon a quarter turn instead of many turns as would be required using a threaded pin/screw.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 13 disclose
wherein one of the at least three pins of the motor in the slot of the second portion elongated along the transverse direction restrains translation of the motor relative to the second portion in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction in that when only one pin is installed, the movement is restricted to rotational movement about the pin within the plane which is perpendicular to the vertical direction as shown and indicated above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 13 disclose wherein two of at least the three pins of the motor assembly in the two slots of the second portion elongated along the lateral direction restrains rotation and translation of the motor relative to the second portion in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction in that once a second pin is installed, the motor is prevented from moving.
Regarding claim 16, KitchenAid discloses wherein the horizontal output shaft is rotatably mounted to the motor housing, and the pins (screws 4) disposed within the slots of the second portion are arranged and oriented to align the motor with the horizontal output shaft as shown above for claim 4.
In modifying KitchenAid as discussed above for claim 13, the at least three pins of the motor assembly disposed within the at least three slots (Meeker et al., Fig. 5, circled above for claim 1) of the second portion are also arranged and oriented to align the motor with the horizontal output shaft (shown above for claim 4) as the motor configuration is unchanged and only the location of the pins and slots is rearranged.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 13 reasonably disclose wherein the two of the at least three slots that are elongated along the lateral direction are spaced by no less than four centimeters from each other in the lateral direction in that in modifying the configuration of the slots in the pattern taught by Meeker et al. (Fig. 5) as shown above for claim 1, the slots would be located toward the outside perimeter of the ring gear plate of KitchenAid as shown/indicated above for claim 5. As evidenced by GForce, this lateral distance is reasonably greater than 4 cm as compared to the size of the hand in the video frame (at 4:56) shown above for claim 5.
Assuming, arguendo, that the combined teaching of the above-cited references do not disclose a distance between the lateral slots greater than 4 cm, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the slot distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of KitchenAid with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 13 disclose wherein the at least three pins are one of cylindrical pins, tapered pins, and rounded pins in that the pins are each cylindrical, rounded and tapered (Davis et al., Fig. 1) as shown above for claim 6.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 17/899976 (US 20240066482) hereinafter
“ ‘482” in view of Meeker et al. (US 2185155).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 1-18, ‘482 claims the subject matter of instant claims 1-18 except that which is underlined below (see side-by-side claim sets which follow below).
In particular, ‘482 claims a slot elongated along the transverse direction and pins, but does not claim two additional slots elongated along a lateral direction and two additional pins for each respective slot.
However, Meeker et al. teaches a stand mixer (Fig. 1) and further teaches the use of an asymmetric configuration for pins (attaching means 41) wherein one of the three slots is located along a transverse direction and the other two of the three slots (among other slots) are located along a lateral direction that is perpendicular to the transverse direction, the three pins (each slot having an attaching means 41) extending perpendicular to the transverse and lateral directions, each of the three pins are disposed within a respective one of the three slots of the second portion of the motor housing as shown below:
PNG
media_image12.png
490
694
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘482 wherein the mixer includes two additional slots elongated along the lateral direction and two additional pins for each respective slot and thereby meet the limitations of claims 1-18.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add additional slots in order to achieve an asymmetric configuration to facilitate assembly by better ensuring that components (such as the housing for ring gear 128, Meeker et al., Fig. 1) are installed in the correct configuration (rather than possibly being installed 90 or 180 degrees off as could occur if the slots are symmetrically arranged) and/or to add more fasteners (pins) and slots to make the assembly sturdier.
PNG
media_image13.png
1147
1363
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
1160
1312
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
1204
1355
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774